Lets discuss why the left wingers never say anything about derogatory about commie tyrants.

[Billy_Kinetta]

Read some books.

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I think it's "numbskull" isn't it?

It can be spelled both ways.

Knumbskull. Three.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Mises. QED.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."​

Look no offense intended but this argument is one that is not unintelligent but just wrong. I can't engage on it. If you want to call liberals Nazis I ain't gonna be the one who changes your mind. I think it actually diminishes our substantive policy arguments with some liberals because frankly nobody takes this Nazi argument seriously except for those who cling to it.

 

[deanrd]

Not only does the left condemn tyrants, like Putin, Saddam and Jung, but also "Tyrant wannabees" like Trump and Durterte.

It's Republicans who embrace such monsters. We see it every day on this very board.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I've read tons of them on this subject alone. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That much is plain.

Read some better books.

I am reading the better books, numskull. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I think it's "numbskull" isn't it?

It can be spelled both ways.

Knumbskull. Three.

Pneumskull might work too...

 

[bripat9643]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Mises. QED.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."​

Look no offense intended but this argument is one that is not unintelligent but just wrong. I can't engage on it. If you want to call liberals Nazis I ain't gonna be the one who changes your mind. I think it actually diminishes our substantive policy arguments with some liberals because frankly nobody takes this Nazi argument seriously except for those who cling to it.

It needs to be repeated over and over until people do start taking it seriously. Lying about historical facts isn't how you advance the truth.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

You are an ignorant - Hitler specifically advocated private ownership and Nazism generally was anti-communist.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

You are an ignorant - Hitler specifically advocated private ownership and Nazism generally was anti-communist.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."

 

[Dim Bulb]

Related reading -

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Mises. QED.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."​

Look no offense intended but this argument is one that is not unintelligent but just wrong. I can't engage on it. If you want to call liberals Nazis I ain't gonna be the one who changes your mind. I think it actually diminishes our substantive policy arguments with some liberals because frankly nobody takes this Nazi argument seriously except for those who cling to it.

It needs to be repeated over and over until people do start taking it seriously. Lying about historical facts isn't how you advance the truth.

Sounds like we disagree on this. It feels to me like a conclusion in search of historical facts to support it. Repeating a few cherry picked facts incessantly, just like repeating the conclusion repeatedly, doesn't do it for me. That's a dynamic of the current post truth culture in which we live. Whoever gets the most people to repeat their opinions the most and the loudest claims it is "truth". I prefer to make my own conclusions.

 

[Pete7469]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

Sorry Mac,

But that's bullshit.

Name 3 "right wing" despots who murdered a lot of people for rejecting free market economics and human rights we enjoy as part of the COTUS.

I'll even give you Pinochet, but he eventually relinquished his power. Any lefty despots do that without a blood bath?


The difference between "right wing extremists" and leftist is night and day when it comes to tyranny and body counts.

 

[Mac1958]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

Sorry Mac,

But that's bullshit.

Name 3 "right wing" despots who murdered a lot of people for rejecting free market economics and human rights we enjoy as part of the COTUS.

I'll even give you Pinochet, but he eventually relinquished his power. Any lefty despots do that without a blood bath?


The difference between "right wing extremists" and leftist is night and day when it comes to tyranny and body counts.

My point is about the silly hyperbole practiced by both ends.

To compare any murderous tyrant to anyone in America is just silly, and a person who does that as part of political debate just can't be taken seriously.
.

 

[Theowl32]

Yeap, they won't admit it.

Have you noticed how the left is not saying shit about the slope commie in North Korea?

You think the left will support anything Trump will do?

They will never admit hitler was a socialist.

That is proven

 

[AntonToo]

Lol, yeap. They are pissed and of course deny hitler was a socialist.

Poor little left wingers.

You are an ignorant - Hitler specifically advocated private ownership and Nazism generally was anti-communist.

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership."

That is false and it does not mean that.

Equivalent would be to say that in United States there is no private real estate ownership because government has eminent domain powers.

As a mater of FACT there was still private business in Germany under Hitler.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Yeap, they won't admit it.

Have you noticed how the left is not saying shit about the slope commie in North Korea?

You think the left will support anything Trump will do?

They will never admit hitler was a socialist.

That is proven

I fully recognize that you may simply be seeking attention by making outrageous posts (including racism), and that's cool. This is America, you are free to play out your emotional needs in public if that is your choice. But, your facts are so off that it reminded me of this scene from Taming of the Shrew:

PETRUCHIO Come on, i' God's name; once more toward our father's.
Good Lord, how bright and goodly shines the moon!
KATHARINA The moon! the sun: it is not moonlight now.
PETRUCHIO I say it is the moon that shines so bright.
KATHARINA I know it is the sun that shines so bright.
PETRUCHIO Now, by my mother's son, and that's myself,
It shall be moon, or star, or what I list,
Or ere I journey to your father's house.
Go on, and fetch our horses back again.
Evermore cross'd and cross'd; nothing but cross'd!
HORTENSIO Say as he says, or we shall never go.
KATHARINA Forward, I pray, since we have come so far,
And be it moon, or sun, or what you please:
An if you please to call it a rush-candle,
Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me.
PETRUCHIO I say it is the moon.
KATHARINA I know it is the moon.
PETRUCHIO Nay, then you lie: it is the blessed sun.
KATHARINA Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun:
But sun it is not, when you say it is not;
And the moon changes even as your mind.
What you will have it named, even that it is;
And so it shall be so for Katharina.
HORTENSIO Petruchio, go thy ways; the field is won.

 

[Coyote]

I do have so many of them on ignore. Ever notice how they don't or they always qualify their statements if they do criticize them. Ever hear or see them rail against that stupid slope in North Korea? How fidel? How about stalin? Ever hear them criticize Pol Pot or Mao? Neither have I.

Oh, but Bush, or Trump, or Thomas Jefferson (he owned slaves), or George Washington (he owned slaves), or any perceived white American conservative republican, well they don't shut the fuck up do they?

But mass murdering commie tyrants......they tap dance gingerly around the criticism. Nothing derogatory. Nothing insulting. Nothing.

What does that mean to you?

That you possibly might suffer from significant hearing loss. You might seek help for that.

FatBabyKim has been an ongoing topic of derision and criticism and I have yet to see any "qualifying"

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao are historical figures, they don't get commented on much other than in historical discussions and moments of manufactured outrage.

 

[2aguy]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

Except the left actually is closer to national socialism then the Right is.....one side of the spectrum wants increased government power, the other side wants less....the left wants total government power over the individual....

 

[Coyote]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

The extremes of each are more like each other than they are to their mainstream.

 

[Mac1958]

The extremes of each are more like each other than they are to their mainstream.

Yep, the "Political Horseshoe" effect:
.

 

[koshergrl]

I do have so many of them on ignore. Ever notice how they don't or they always qualify their statements if they do criticize them. Ever hear or see them rail against that stupid slope in North Korea? How fidel? How about stalin? Ever hear them criticize Pol Pot or Mao? Neither have I.

Oh, but Bush, or Trump, or Thomas Jefferson (he owned slaves), or George Washington (he owned slaves), or any perceived white American conservative republican, well they don't shut the fuck up do they?

But mass murdering commie tyrants......they tap dance gingerly around the criticism. Nothing derogatory. Nothing insulting. Nothing.

What does that mean to you?

It means they believe in totalitarianism if the tyrants who are killing people are killing people for reasons they hold dear. First and foremost, the reduction of the population.

Progressives think that by killing off children, the elderly, the disabled, and rural residents, they will benefit in a material way.

 

[koshergrl]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

The extremes of each are more like each other than they are to their mainstream.

No, they aren't. You don't consider death cultists to be *extreme*. You are one.

You only consider right wingers to be extreme, and you consider them extreme because they protect life, and value liberty.

 

[Dim Bulb]

You have things kind of fucked up here. What usually happens is that some jackass will compare some democratic politician or policy to one of history's great villains and then we will make fun of you for being stupid. You want to make a topic specifically about these figures then you will probably get the desired response.

Both ends of the spectrum compare the other to Hitler and/or the Nazis pretty regularly here.

That's about as big an insult to millions who suffered as it can get.

The two ends of the spectrum are very similar in that way, and in other ways.
.

Except the left actually is closer to national socialism then the Right is.....one side of the spectrum wants increased government power, the other side wants less....the left wants total government power over the individual....

"...what you will have it named, even that it is."